Some bits about Monsters from the WotC boards

[TarionzCousin]

I wonder if monsters will be programmed in seven steps?

You kick down the door and apparently interrupt some sort of talking session. About a dozen monsters are sitting on folding chairs in a circle, most of them with styrofoam cups in their hands.

Ogre: "I'm Joe Monster and I have a fighting problem."

All: "HI, JOE."
---
But seriously, putting normal monster tactics in their descriptions is a good idea, in my opinion. It (hopefully) compels the designers to make the monster capable of putting up a good fight, or at least surviving in its normal environment.

 

[freyar]

Well, I'll be sad about the loss of consistency, though less prep time is good. :\ It does seem like it might be easy to convert 3.X monsters to 4e, though, since the statblocks almost certainly have to be reduced.

We've heard that ToB and SWSE are previews for the core rules; has anyone from WotC said whether MM5 is a preview of the monsters in 4e (in the sense of themes and use, rather than specific mechanics)? The comments about monster roles, etc, sound similar in the two cases.

 

[Shroomy]

I'm not too worried about every monster being playable, as I thought the ECL/LA mechanic ended up with glass tiger characters and I never really liked the Savage Species monster-class progression either. However, even if it mechanically changes, I think that adding classes or advancing monsters is a must. I also hope that they won't get rid of templates. Templates would be a big, big loss for me...

 

[Frostmarrow]

You kick down the door and apparently interrupt some sort of talking session. About a dozen monsters are sitting on folding chairs in a circle, most of them with styrofoam cups in their hands.

Ogre: "I'm Joe Monster and I have a fighting problem."

All: "HI, JOE."
---
But seriously, putting normal monster tactics in their descriptions is a good idea, in my opinion. It (hopefully) compels the designers to make the monster capable of putting up a good fight, or at least surviving in its normal environment.

Yeah, I think it fits with the new design paradigm that things should do what they are designed for. Also, monster tactics have already been published (in MMIV I suppose?).

It also fits with the 'new' idea of having lots of different monsters in an encounter that strengthen each other. The DM just reads what the monster1 does on round 1 and then monster2. He won't have to bother with the entire statblocks he'll just follow the instructions for round 1.

A sly DM might tag-team shieldwall formation hobgoblins with kobold slingers or even with a controller such as a mind flayer (or both). The kobolds' orders for round 1 is to move into line of sight/range and sling away. The mind flayer can have steps or be a free agent with which the DM gets creative.

This begs the question: Will monsters always forfeit initiative?

 

[Szatany]

I would imagine it actually is like SWSE a bit. There could be monstrous classes, and then hit point modifiers based on size. So a brontosaurus might just be a 4th level Grazer, with tons of hit points because it's huge, and it doesn't attack well, but when it hits it does tons of damage.

Grazer - defensive abilities, good perception, perhaps fast movement or tough hide, poor combat abilities
Stalker - stealth, moderate combat abilities
Striker - agility, speed, and high combat abilities

Any other classes needed?

These are good for animals and such, but what about undead, constructs, elementals? There should be also less common classes, but based on popular concepts. Like Hermit.

 

[Frostmarrow]

With this approach they can do all sorts of neat transformation stuff as they have talked about in the design of MMV. For instance:

Werewolf 4hp AC 10

1. Strike with hand (+0, 1d4).
2. Full defense.
3. Transform into crinos form; gain 20 hp, AC +8, and DR 10 (silver).
4. Charge nearest, claw (+10, 1d8+8), claw (+10, 1d8+8), bite (+6, 1d6+8), kick (+6, 1d6+8), growl (save vs fear DC 15).
5. Rinse and repeat.

 

[Dr. Harry]

We've heard that ToB and SWSE are previews for the core rules; has anyone from WotC said whether MM5 is a preview of the monsters in 4e (in the sense of themes and use, rather than specific mechanics)? The comments about monster roles, etc, sound similar in the two cases.

In the design diaries for MMV, this point is made fairly explicitly. At the very least, the preparation for 4e strongly informed the construction of MMV and its monsters.

(I'm not sure how this plays out, because I was going to get MMV only to find out that it would be good until 4e, so I didn't get it.)

Harry

 

[teitan]

I suspect they'll get rid of monster HD entirely, and use CR alone as the measure. Things based off HD will either use CR instead, or just be assigned numbers by eye (ie, with guidelines instead of concrete formulae).

To my understanding there won't be CR anymore.

 

[Frostmarrow]

To my understanding there won't be CR anymore.

They'll have XP (or level for short). Where did I read that? Sum up party XP and make an encounter on that amount of points. My guess is they'll use the same amounts in D&DM.

 

[frankthedm]

I never understood why D&D made plant-eating dinosaurs have far superior fighting skill to experienced gladiators. It was just a function of the linking of lots of abilities to HD.

Because attack rolls had to overcome a targets's AC. Thus fighting ability must scale upward.

In, lets say Warhammer, that Big Hungry Monster, might have a Hit% of 30%, but do scads of damage. it always has the potential to hit PCs one third of the time and it's damage makes it a threat to experienced characters.

In D&D, AC & HP keep going up. Unless the BHM has a good attack bonus, there comes a time when It can't even hit its intended foes.